I don't. I weigh factors such as the plausibility of the the article, the author, what they're saying, and so on.
Well I am still unclear on what you actually believe as you seem to just post anything that criticizes Climate Change.
I'll ask directly again.
How about taking a stance on if your opinion is that the planet has warmed, cooled or remained the same? Then answer what your opinion is on to what is causing any change?
Originally posted by newf: I'll ask directly again.
Well, thank you for asking a straight-forward, no bullshit question. It is refreshing.
quote
How about taking a stance on if your opinion is that the planet has warmed, cooled or remained the same? Then answer what your opinion is on to what is causing any change?
I'll try to summarize.
1. The case for human-caused warming has not been sufficiently made. It is assumed, and not supported by actual data, only assumptions made on causation.
2. The computer models of the warmists have been consistently wrong. Computer models have been taken as fact and evidence, and they are neither, especially when they are consistently wrong.
3. Warming scientists have neither investigated nor considered natural cycles and forcings.
4. Solar forcings, combined with or causing changes in the PDO and AMO ocean temperature cycles, are a *much* better fit for temperate trends than CO2 level ("R squared" correlation of 80% for PDO/AMO versus 40% for CO2 rise). Based on all I've read, the best explanation for what is happening in our climate is solar variability affecting the climate directly, and indirectly affecting the climate through ocean temperatures over a longer term (because the oceans gain and lose heat slowly and over longer periods).
5. Papers that suggest a contrary view have been *blocked* from publication by scientists who support human-caused warming. This disrupts the normal scientific process.
6. The planet warmed in the early part of the 20th century (around 1910 to 1940), cooled from 1940 to 1970, warmed from 1970 to 1998, and temps have been flat since around 1998 or 2000 (depending on where you start the trend line with respect to the strong El Nino of 1998). The warming theory doesn't explain the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the mid century, and the flat temperatures of the last 10 years.
..NASA recently conducted a study of all available information from the past 10 years ,,there is absolutely no global warming,
..little mention was made of the huge burning ball of fire we revolve around ,,which I beleave controls our temperature .. ..One of the NASA scientist has been making the rounds on talk shows to inform people of the truth ..One of the reasons for the study is many scientist were flat out lying after the leading global warming colleges & scientist were caught in repeated lies.. ..This is just another democrat liberal lie ,so you will never convince them . ..I remember in the early 80s the democrats/liberals claim we were entering a new ice age, we had some hard freeze in florida a few years ,,destroyed the citrus industry I sort of beleave them the Liberals will use any lie to support thier beleave & no truth will effect them.. NASA says no global warming ,NASA say,s Global warming is a farce,the main proponents of global warming caught in GIANTIC lie. Sorry i did not get the guys name but have heard him on a few shows,,I listen to talk ,science ,information & military intel all day ,,this information will be easy to find ,,of course the global warming people can not find a turd in a taco bell toilet NO ONE REALLY KNOWS ?? late snow in mountains burning heat accross the country WORSE IS COMMING ,there is a reason for Japan earthquakes,for tsunamie,financial disaster ..Forgot he was on coast to coast a few days ago, the all night talk show ,, coast to coast has been a leading backer of global warming ,of course the show is very left wing now,, Big foot & left wing what a combo !!
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 07-31-2011).]
His NAME doctor Roy Spencer ..I remember they slamed him on Public Radio,you can tell when the truth hurts ,, there are 100,s of marxist democrats hating & accusing this man ,he is the LEADING CLIMATOLOGIST IN THE COUNTRY !! THEY SAY HE IS NOT REAL, AN ACTOR,NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST,typical liberal dribble when they are caught in a BIG Lie.. i HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO PUBLIC RADIO ALL DAY the hi light of PBR today..communist Van JONES saying the tea party is a few people,supported by Large corporations and over 60% of country wants higher taxes,, they neglect to mention Jones is the most famous communist in the country. Marxist Jones is a leading proponent of monetary Hand outs as long as they come from YOU !! People on PBR do not mind to pay a small increase in Taxes,, as long as they recieve HUGE pay out to benefit them.
1. The case for human-caused warming has not been sufficiently made. It is assumed, and not supported by actual data, only assumptions made on causation.
2. The computer models of the warmists have been consistently wrong. Computer models have been taken as fact and evidence, and they are neither, especially when they are consistently wrong.
3. Warming scientists have neither investigated nor considered natural cycles and forcings.
4. Solar forcings, combined with or causing changes in the PDO and AMO ocean temperature cycles, are a *much* better fit for temperate trends than CO2 level ("R squared" correlation of 80% for PDO/AMO versus 40% for CO2 rise). Based on all I've read, the best explanation for what is happening in our climate is solar variability affecting the climate directly, and indirectly affecting the climate through ocean temperatures over a longer term (because the oceans gain and lose heat slowly and over longer periods).
5. Papers that suggest a contrary view have been *blocked* from publication by scientists who support human-caused warming. This disrupts the normal scientific process.
6. The planet warmed in the early part of the 20th century (around 1910 to 1940), cooled from 1940 to 1970, warmed from 1970 to 1998, and temps have been flat since around 1998 or 2000 (depending on where you start the trend line with respect to the strong El Nino of 1998). The warming theory doesn't explain the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the mid century, and the flat temperatures of the last 10 years.
Well I did only have to ask twice this time
Anyways let's see if we can agree on some facts. Where are you getting the temp data that shows flat temps?
You are always taking shots at Fierobear (who actually posts the truth on this thread) so why don't you take a shot at Uhlanstan? I think he'd like that
You are always taking shots at Fierobear (who actually posts the truth on this thread) so why don't you take a shot at Uhlanstan? I think he'd like that
Interesting article. Here is a quote for those who don't want to use the link
"The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current Australian political climate.
The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2 emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer — about 1%. Plants don’t like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2 from the air.
Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions."
"Texas governor Rick Perry's bid for the Republican expected nomination has cheered climate sceptics who share his view that global warming is a 'phony mess'"
"Texas governor Rick Perry's bid for the Republican expected nomination has cheered climate sceptics who share his view that global warming is a 'phony mess'"
Maybe he can have a mass "pray in" to stop Climate Change..
Actually, I'll disagree with you Fierobear. It isn't falling apart.
The "science" was unadulterated fiction. It was concocted. It was not real. The voices against it are just getting stronger.
It is like the rain man coming to town to bilk people out of their money and the FBI coming after him. "oh, was he a crook?" Yep. you just didn't know it at the time.
Actually, I'll disagree with you Fierobear. It isn't falling apart.
The "science" was unadulterated fiction. It was concocted. It was not real. The voices against it are just getting stronger.
It is like the rain man coming to town to bilk people out of their money and the FBI coming after him. "oh, was he a crook?" Yep. you just didn't know it at the time.
Arn
That's what I meant. The covers are coming off, and we're seeing that it was cooked up bullshit.
"The uncertainty argument, that we really don't know what is going on and that climate scientists are corrupt, has been reasonably effective in the last few years," said Andrew Dessler, also a Google fellow and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
"We don’t know everything about the climate from a scientific standpoint and there are uncertainties, but they are uncertainties over whether climate change is going to either be bad or really, really bad," he told SolveClimate News.
"People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-13-2011).]
Seriously?? Will you ever learn to actually read past the headline???
This is what the article says was a major reason for the lack of success.
quote
By the time Seattle won the award, homeowners were battered by unemployment and foreclosures. The long-term benefits of energy upgrades lacked the tangible punch of a new countertop. And the high number of unemployed construction workers edged out new weatherization installers for the paltry number of jobs.
"Really, we couldn't have rolled out this program at a worse time," said Greenwich, who had helped write the city's grant proposal.
"The outcomes are very disappointing. I think the city has worked really hard, but no one anticipated just how bad this recession was going to be, and the effect it was going to have on this program."
I guess you enjoy seeing people unemployed if it has to do with making people more effiecient. Do you relate it to the denying of Climate Change somehow???
And all that changes the fact that it was a failure--How?
It's newf. That's his stock answer number seven, "read past the headline", after which he proceeds to miss the point of the article completely, and bog down in the spin part.
It's newf. That's his stock answer number seven, "read past the headline", after which he proceeds to miss the point of the article completely, and bog down in the spin part.
Well then what was your point? This is a thread about the "evidence" against AGW, correct?
Well then what was your point? This is a thread about the "evidence" against AGW, correct?
AGW is being used as justification for all sorts of outrageous and expensive government crap. But that would pale in comparison to the money that would be pissed away if a cap and tax program were put in place. THAT'S why it is relevant. AGW is about money, it has always been about money, and it's money that's being flushed down a s***hole over a scam.
AGW is being used as justification for all sorts of outrageous and expensive government crap. But that would pale in comparison to the money that would be pissed away if a cap and tax program were put in place. THAT'S why it is relevant. AGW is about money, it has always been about money, and it's money that's being flushed down a s***hole over a scam.
Ohhhhh I see so making homes more energy effecient and trying to create jobs is outrageous and crap. Hate to tell you but even if you deny Climate Change it still make sense to retrofit houses to become better energy users. Just the price of oil alone would make that a good thing.
If you were to use the same arguement then the recent heat waves in North America would prove the opposite... but of course that would mean you would have to ignore the science.
